Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(Avigdor) Lieberman: Jerusalem is our eternal capital, it will never be divided

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:12 AM
Original message
(Avigdor) Lieberman: Jerusalem is our eternal capital, it will never be divided
<snip>

"Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Tuesday that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the State of Israel and that it will never be divided - "neither directly nor indirectly."

Addressing a group of diplomatic staff at the President's Residence in Jerusalem, the foreign minister quoted a speech made by former prime minister Menachem Begin, explaining that Begin's remarks reflected the connection that Jews around the world feel toward Jerusalem - a connection that still exists today.

"Today," he said, "I stand before you in Jerusalem, and confirm Begin's words: the city will remain our capital and will never be divided."

<snip>

"Lieberman's remarks echoed the sentiments voiced by several officials who spoke about the capital in ceremonies marking Memorial Day and Independence Day on Monday and Tuesday. Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said during a ceremony in Jerusalem on Monday that "we won't apologize for the building of Jerusalem our capital."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164184.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Obama: Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Obama Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem (one day after AIPAC speech)


Obama Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem


Friday, June 6, 2008

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city "must remain undivided."

Obama's statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

...snip:

Obama quickly backtracked yesterday in an interview with CNN.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503510.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The very next sentence that you did not include in your citation
Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. obviously there is not going to be a two-state solution without a negotiated settlement
Edited on Tue Apr-20-10 01:34 PM by Douglas Carpenter
on Jerusalem and Palestinian Sovereignty in East Jerusalem. President Obama knows that. Everyone knows that.

To oppose a negotiated settlement of Jerusalem and Palestinian sovereignty in East Jerusalem is to oppose the two-state solution. President Obama knows that. Everyone knows that. That is why the Obama Administration is particularly upset about Israel's continuous settlement expansion in East Jerusalem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Do you envision a separation of Jerusalem similar to the 1948-1967 period?
I certainly think that Obama would be opposed to something along those lines.

I believe his view on the subject is more similar to what is proposed in the Geneva Initiative.

Lieberman, on the other hand, appears to want all of Jerusalem (including all of East Jerusalem) to remain entirely under Israeli sovereignty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. in legal principle - given that all land occupied after June 4, 1967 is
Occupied Palestinian Territory and is recognized as such by International Law - The Palestinians are legally entitled to the 1948-1967 border as is Israel - no more, no less - except minor and mutually agreeable adjustments for the sake of practicality.

However, in a two-state solution - this is another concession in which the PLO have indicated they would be willing to make.

The PLO also recognizes that it would be the interest of long term peace to have an arrangement in which access to Jerusalem and its holy sites are guaranteed to Christians, Jews and Muslims with the respective communities having sovereignty or in some cases sharing sovereignty.

I do agree that the Geneva Initiative offers a plausible blueprint for such arrangements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. The 2-state solution is as dead as Ronald Reagan's corpse!
Let's accept that fact, and move on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. If Obama had stood by what he said, he would have been wrong...
Edited on Tue Apr-20-10 03:51 PM by Violet_Crumble
And that sentence that you pointed out does not equate to him throwing his support behind Israel having all of Jerusalem as its capital. After all, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute the removal of settlements in the West Bank, as well as taking down the separation barrier, but pointing that out does not equate to supporting those things remaining as they are..


Do you agree with the likes of Lieberman who think Jerusalem must be the undivided capital of Israel? I'd like to know in yr own words what yr opinion is about the future of Jerusalem. Also, yr reply to the OP where you quoted Obama (even though in a thread not long ago you were made aware that Obama had issued a disclaimer about that comment), it does very much appear as though yr attempting to bring Obama into it as being in support of the stance Lieberman holds in order to make it palatable to those who respect Obama and quite rightly detest Lieberman...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Let's look at some of those clarifying remarks on Jerusalem
Edited on Tue Apr-20-10 05:09 PM by oberliner
But, a campaign adviser clarified to The Jerusalem Post later that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

"Two principles should apply to any outcome -- Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967," the adviser said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/06/Obama-clarifies-undivided-Jerusalem/UPI-85451212778019/

That is something different from what Lieberman said (quoting Begin):

"Citizens of Israel, let us set Jerusalem above our highest joy! It is our right to reaffirm on the day of our rededication of our national independence, that the city, north and south, east and west, is entirely under Israel's sovereignty, our eternal capital city."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164184.html

The difference is that Obama did not mean that East Jerusalem would be entirely under Israel's sovereignty whereas that is what Lieberman is saying.

Both, however, do not want to see the city physically divided in the way that the Obama advisor mentioned.

My own view is the same as what is proposed in the Geneva Initiative:

Jerusalem: Israel and Palestine shall have their mutually recognized capitals in areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.

Israel will receive sovereignty over the "Wailing" Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, including Givat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim, and the original historically Jewish area of Gush Etzion. Israel shall administer the Tower of David, the Western Wall tunnel, and the Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

Palestine will receive sovereignty over al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount (the "Compound"), the Muslim, Christian, and Armenian Quarters of the Old City, and the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Thanks for clarifying that what Obama and Lieberman said were different
As I said, you replying to the op with a quote from Obama came across very much as I'd described inthe post u just replied to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Obama back pedaled from those remarks the day after he made them
BTW, if I were an Israeli, I would think twice about believing anything Obama says about Israel's security. Obama says a lot of things. It is what he does, or more often what he fails to do, that one must pay attention to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. Eternal capital?
What's that tell you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Tells me that I don't want my tax dollars to support a religious regime.
We are paying to set up a Jewish theocracy. That is wrong in this country and it is wrong there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Israel is not a Jewish theocracy and the regime in charge there is not especially religious
Avigdor Lieberman in particular is pretty secular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Lieberman is a right-wing nationalist, but he's not a theocrat
More like Pat Buchanan than Pat Robertson (not that I care for either!)

The Israeli government as a whole are xenophobic-isolationist hawks, but they are not particularly into setting up a religious regime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. There are a fair number of theocrats in the government of Israel, actually.
Eli Yishai of Shas is a member of the Septet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 21st 2024, 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC